+1 for giving up the policy of keeping stupid historical defaults. :-) Seriously, it doesn't make sense for this issue to keep it. But I doubt this will be realized.
Karsten >We have a policy of keeping stupid historical defaults. > >Peter > > >On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Jesse Glick <jesse.gl...@oracle.com> wrote: >> On 08/18/2010 02:27 PM, Matt Benson wrote: >>> >>> I would still guess that more builds than not DON'T need to compile >>> against Ant itself. >> >> Of course; at least an order of magnitude more. But those that do will be >> *broken* if your suggested change is made, whereas those that don't get a >> *warning* currently. My inclination was to err on the conservative side and >> retain compatibility even at the cost of a little inconvenience. >> >> Call a vote if you want to change the default and break compatibility. 1.8.0 >> and 1.8.1 have the warning, so a break in 1.8.2 would only affect those who >> ignored the warning for two prior releases. I don't know if Ant generally >> has a policy for fixing stupid historical defaults, like failonerror=false. >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org >> >> > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org >For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org > ___________________________________________________________ WEB.DE DSL SOMMER-SPECIAL: Surf & Phone Flat 16.000 für nur 19,99 ¿/mtl.!* http://web.de/DSL-Doppel-Flatrate/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org
